Janet Yellen on why she chose economics

The NewYorker recently ran a very interesting profile of Janet Yellen. The author, Nicholas Lemann, notes that talks about economics "as if it were one of the helping professions." Yellen says she decided to major in economics because

"What I really liked about economics was that it provided a rigorous, analytical way of thinking about issues that have a great impact on people's lives.  Economics is a subject that really related to core aspects of human well-being, and there's a methodology for thinking about these things. This was a very appealing combination to me."

I can relate to that. Coming out of Swarthmore, I wanted to do good and Larry Westphal's class convinced me that there were ways of thinking about economic development and international trade that could lead to better outcomes for countries like Brazil, where I had lived. Simultaneously, Bernie Saffron's micro seminar gave me this set of intellectual keys that seemed able to open the locks of so many doors of economic phenomena. Instead of just BSing, as non-economists seemed to do, one could think analytically and truly understand what's going on. This is the lure of what the physicist Richard Feynman referred to as "the pleasure of finding things out" (in a book title) but I rephrase as the deep curiosity to "figure out how the world works."  In the end I don't think I've done much of anything that has a "great impact on people's lives."  But I've studied trade and foreign investment and I think those phenomena do have major impacts so understanding them better is important and will ultimately benefit people.

Post-mortem

 I need to work through this the only way i know how: by analyzing it. A friend sent me about 5 commentaries from the Brazilian press but I think they missed some key points.

1. The first goal followed the form of other goals that have knocked brazil out of the world cup. On a set play, the Brazilian defenders just inexcusably fail to mark the leading scorer of the opposite team (Zidane twice in 98, T. Henry in 2006, G. Muller in 2014).
2. The next 4 goals require a completely different explanation. I think we have to see this as a collective psychological collapse. A team is suddenly unable to carry out basic operations. Germany was a hot knife and Brazil was warm butter.
3. One can and should blame Scolari but I don't think you can really fault his team selections--if you think he should have kept to the formation that got Brazil to the semis. Scolari substituted like for like. Bernard dribbles and drives along the left and is not much use on defence (like Neymar). Dante plays the same position as Thiago Silva for a considerably better team (Bayern Munich).
4. The German midfield of Khedira, Kroos, and Schweinsteiger is really one of the best ever and in hindsight it was a huge mistake to think that Luis Gustavo and Fernandinho would be up to the challenge of matching up with them. The problem is that we didn't have anyone on the bench who could have been predicted to do much better. Probably Fred should have been dropped and replaced by Paulinho so at least we would not have been outnumbered in that sector. But Scolari is far too set in his ways to make such a major tactical shift.